niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: From what I can gather all sensates were born sensates, which is why people in the same cluster have the same birthday and take their first breaths together. It isn't until later when someone activates their connection to their other selves in the cluster that they become aware of them, which is what Angelica does. Will and Sarah are both sensates, who made eye contact with each other when they were children hence their connection, to one another, even though he is still unaware of the rest of his cluster, or knows what is happening. He doesn't make eye contact with Whispers or Jonas until he his older. A similar thing happens between Riley and Yrsa in Iceland when Riley was still a child. Yrsa made eye contact with her at some point which is what connected them and then used that connection to try and keep her safe from Whispers and the Biologic Preservation Organization. So even though both Will and Riley were unaware of the rest of the cluster, it is shown that they still have some sensate abilities.  <sep>  Q: Will and Sarah's connection A: people in the same cluster have the same birthday and take their first breaths together  Q: What does being in the same cluster mean? A: hen someone activates their connection to their other selves in the cluster that they become aware of them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the significance of Mr. Whisper?
Output: No
CONTEXT: You can safely watch Season 5 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. without worrying about spoiling the end of Infinity War. There are no spoilers made, and only some very vague references to the beginning of Infinity War, and none to the movie's climax. The references are slim and not relevant to the plot of the show, and are a lot less tied into the show than the Winter Soldier reveals to Season 1 (where they were essential to understanding the plot) or even the vague references to Thor 2 earlier in that season, where the agents come to play clean-up after the events of the movie. Go forth and watch safely.  <sep>  Q: Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 5 - does it spoil Avengers: Infinity War?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: You can safely watch Season 5 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. without worrying about spoiling the end of Infinity War. There are no spoilers made, and only some very vague references to the beginning of Infinity War, and none to the movie's climax. The references are slim and not relevant to the plot of the show, and are a lot less tied into the show than the Winter Soldier reveals to Season 1 (where they were essential to understanding the plot) or even the vague references to Thor 2 earlier in that season, where the agents come to play clean-up after the events of the movie. Go forth and watch safely.  <sep>  Q: Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 5 - does it spoil Avengers: Infinity War? A: You can safely watch Season 5 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. without worrying about spoiling the end of Infinity War  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would you recommend I watch it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The planet was toxic due to the waste that humanity created. As such, any soil and water would kill the plants that grew there, and it was no longer feasible for humanity to stay. The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again. The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them. It's not infeasible to think that the ship had a seed vault in it, given its phenomenal size, and original mission was to return to Earth at some point.  <sep>  Q: How can the Axiom computer know Earth is safe based on the one little plant EVE found?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The planet was toxic due to the waste that humanity created. As such, any soil and water would kill the plants that grew there, and it was no longer feasible for humanity to stay. The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again. The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them. It's not infeasible to think that the ship had a seed vault in it, given its phenomenal size, and original mission was to return to Earth at some point.  <sep>  Q: How can the Axiom computer know Earth is safe based on the one little plant EVE found? A: The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: But what if the plant was poisonous?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The planet was toxic due to the waste that humanity created. As such, any soil and water would kill the plants that grew there, and it was no longer feasible for humanity to stay. The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again. The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them. It's not infeasible to think that the ship had a seed vault in it, given its phenomenal size, and original mission was to return to Earth at some point.  <sep>  Q: How can the Axiom computer know Earth is safe based on the one little plant EVE found? A: The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again  Q: But what if the plant was poisonous? A: The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did? A: He didn't have any solid leads to go on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell about this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did? A: He didn't have any solid leads to go on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you feel he was tentative?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did? A: He didn't have any solid leads to go on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What show was this again?
Output: No
CONTEXT: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did? A: He didn't have any solid leads to go on  Q: What else can you tell about this? A: He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Queen find the solid lead he needs later?
Output: No
CONTEXT: No, it does not mean that all dialog is sung, have a look at Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, West Side Story, etc. The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through (although there are versions where Valjean speaks a normal line to Javert when he gives him his address but this is less usual). How much of the musical is sung and how much is spoken is down to the taste of the director and his colleagues. Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song (like in Rock of Ages or the Phantom of the Opera) but sometimes everything is in song (like in Les Mis).  <sep>  Q: Why is the whole movie Les Miserables sung?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, it does not mean that all dialog is sung, have a look at Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, West Side Story, etc. The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through (although there are versions where Valjean speaks a normal line to Javert when he gives him his address but this is less usual). How much of the musical is sung and how much is spoken is down to the taste of the director and his colleagues. Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song (like in Rock of Ages or the Phantom of the Opera) but sometimes everything is in song (like in Les Mis).  <sep>  Q: Why is the whole movie Les Miserables sung? A: The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What genre would you describe it as?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, it does not mean that all dialog is sung, have a look at Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, West Side Story, etc. The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through (although there are versions where Valjean speaks a normal line to Javert when he gives him his address but this is less usual). How much of the musical is sung and how much is spoken is down to the taste of the director and his colleagues. Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song (like in Rock of Ages or the Phantom of the Opera) but sometimes everything is in song (like in Les Mis).  <sep>  Q: Why is the whole movie Les Miserables sung? A: The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What language is it generally sung in?
Output: No
CONTEXT: No, it does not mean that all dialog is sung, have a look at Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, West Side Story, etc. The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through (although there are versions where Valjean speaks a normal line to Javert when he gives him his address but this is less usual). How much of the musical is sung and how much is spoken is down to the taste of the director and his colleagues. Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song (like in Rock of Ages or the Phantom of the Opera) but sometimes everything is in song (like in Les Mis).  <sep>  Q: Why is the whole movie Les Miserables sung? A: The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through  Q: What genre would you describe it as? A: Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any favourite characters?
Output: No
CONTEXT: While Frollo's function was indeed divided between several characters, Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience. Hence, characters have alternate back stories that present different motivations and the nuances of the source material may be forgone, rendering certain details like Quasimodo's lineage inconsequential. As such, while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother. Honestly, this is similar to the puzzle as to why characters see a similarity between Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World.  <sep>  Q: In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Is the gyspy woman really Quasimodo's mom?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: While Frollo's function was indeed divided between several characters, Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience. Hence, characters have alternate back stories that present different motivations and the nuances of the source material may be forgone, rendering certain details like Quasimodo's lineage inconsequential. As such, while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother. Honestly, this is similar to the puzzle as to why characters see a similarity between Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World.  <sep>  Q: In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Is the gyspy woman really Quasimodo's mom? A: while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think Disney added the Gypsy woman to the story when she was not in the book?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Early on in the movie, there is the establishment of society's norms, which include a comprehensive emphasis upon agriculture and not only a disregard, but an admonishment of intellectualism and professions beyond trades. During Tom's parent-teacher conference, his aptitude for farming is made apparent by his unsatisfactory marks. Furthermore, the recordings sent to Cooper state that Tom is embracing farming, which is the standard for society at that point. As such, Tom's complete acceptance of society's norms include a disposition to repel the practical application of science and medicine.  <sep>  Q: Why did Murph's brother and his wife refuse a doctor for their son in Interstellar?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Early on in the movie, there is the establishment of society's norms, which include a comprehensive emphasis upon agriculture and not only a disregard, but an admonishment of intellectualism and professions beyond trades. During Tom's parent-teacher conference, his aptitude for farming is made apparent by his unsatisfactory marks. Furthermore, the recordings sent to Cooper state that Tom is embracing farming, which is the standard for society at that point. As such, Tom's complete acceptance of society's norms include a disposition to repel the practical application of science and medicine.  <sep>  Q: Why did Murph's brother and his wife refuse a doctor for their son in Interstellar? A: society's norms, which include a comprehensive emphasis upon agriculture and not only a disregard, but an admonishment of intellectualism and professions beyond trades  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Interstellar an anti science film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes. Could be also, since she was working for the wicked, that she just took a smaller portion of whatever they were working with to erase the memory. Now Thomas's name, I think she just had dreams/visions about him, just like Thomas had visions/dreams about her.  <sep>  Q: Why did Teresa know Thomas's and her name?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes. Could be also, since she was working for the wicked, that she just took a smaller portion of whatever they were working with to erase the memory. Now Thomas's name, I think she just had dreams/visions about him, just like Thomas had visions/dreams about her.  <sep>  Q: Why did Teresa know Thomas's and her name? A: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: It is called the maze runner
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes. Could be also, since she was working for the wicked, that she just took a smaller portion of whatever they were working with to erase the memory. Now Thomas's name, I think she just had dreams/visions about him, just like Thomas had visions/dreams about her.  <sep>  Q: Why did Teresa know Thomas's and her name? A: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes  Q: It is called the maze runner A: Could be also, since she was working for the wicked, that she just took a smaller portion of whatever they were working with to erase the memory  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is that when she wakes up in the lift?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes. Could be also, since she was working for the wicked, that she just took a smaller portion of whatever they were working with to erase the memory. Now Thomas's name, I think she just had dreams/visions about him, just like Thomas had visions/dreams about her.  <sep>  Q: Why did Teresa know Thomas's and her name? A: Her name, she just remembered earlier than everyone else. While the others used to take days to remember, her name came in hours or minutes  Q: It is called the maze runner A: Could be also, since she was working for the wicked, that she just took a smaller portion of whatever they were working with to erase the memory  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did they take?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I always looked at it as Rose giving her heart to Jack, symbolically. Also, she knew the value of it and knew that in an extreme moment of poverty she could sell it, but she was now at the end of her life and knew she no longer needed that "chip" to cash in. Also, recall that it was somewhat "stolen", so passing it on to her heirs would come with some risk she probably wasn't willing to impart on them.  <sep>  Q: Why did Rose throw the diamond necklace overboard?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I always looked at it as Rose giving her heart to Jack, symbolically. Also, she knew the value of it and knew that in an extreme moment of poverty she could sell it, but she was now at the end of her life and knew she no longer needed that "chip" to cash in. Also, recall that it was somewhat "stolen", so passing it on to her heirs would come with some risk she probably wasn't willing to impart on them.  <sep>  Q: Why did Rose throw the diamond necklace overboard? A: I always looked at it as Rose giving her heart to Jack, symbolically  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What 0ship was Rose on?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Whilst he lay recovering from his wounds his father, who had little regard for him and wanted to ensure his own position of power set to work. He had authority when he was hand which his father took. He had power due to his wild men who had been removed. He had influence over the Gold Cloaks and guard via Bron etc. This had been removed. All of his allies and supporters had been bought by his father or sent away whereas his enemies now enjoyed the protection and power of his sister and nephew. He now has no political authority and no muscle to back his claims. He was also given no credit for what he did in defending the city. Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable.  <sep>  Q: Why was Tyrion disgraced?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Whilst he lay recovering from his wounds his father, who had little regard for him and wanted to ensure his own position of power set to work. He had authority when he was hand which his father took. He had power due to his wild men who had been removed. He had influence over the Gold Cloaks and guard via Bron etc. This had been removed. All of his allies and supporters had been bought by his father or sent away whereas his enemies now enjoyed the protection and power of his sister and nephew. He now has no political authority and no muscle to back his claims. He was also given no credit for what he did in defending the city. Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable.  <sep>  Q: Why was Tyrion disgraced? A: Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Tywin was a good father?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Whilst he lay recovering from his wounds his father, who had little regard for him and wanted to ensure his own position of power set to work. He had authority when he was hand which his father took. He had power due to his wild men who had been removed. He had influence over the Gold Cloaks and guard via Bron etc. This had been removed. All of his allies and supporters had been bought by his father or sent away whereas his enemies now enjoyed the protection and power of his sister and nephew. He now has no political authority and no muscle to back his claims. He was also given no credit for what he did in defending the city. Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable.  <sep>  Q: Why was Tyrion disgraced? A: Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable  Q: Do you think Tywin was a good father? A: his father, who had little regard for him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the The Hand have many duties?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Whilst he lay recovering from his wounds his father, who had little regard for him and wanted to ensure his own position of power set to work. He had authority when he was hand which his father took. He had power due to his wild men who had been removed. He had influence over the Gold Cloaks and guard via Bron etc. This had been removed. All of his allies and supporters had been bought by his father or sent away whereas his enemies now enjoyed the protection and power of his sister and nephew. He now has no political authority and no muscle to back his claims. He was also given no credit for what he did in defending the city. Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable.  <sep>  Q: Why was Tyrion disgraced? A: Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable  Q: Do you think Tywin was a good father? A: his father, who had little regard for him  Q: Did the The Hand have many duties? A: He had authority when he was hand which his father took  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what does val ar morghulis mean?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Whilst he lay recovering from his wounds his father, who had little regard for him and wanted to ensure his own position of power set to work. He had authority when he was hand which his father took. He had power due to his wild men who had been removed. He had influence over the Gold Cloaks and guard via Bron etc. This had been removed. All of his allies and supporters had been bought by his father or sent away whereas his enemies now enjoyed the protection and power of his sister and nephew. He now has no political authority and no muscle to back his claims. He was also given no credit for what he did in defending the city. Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable.  <sep>  Q: Why was Tyrion disgraced? A: Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable  Q: Do you think Tywin was a good father? A: his father, who had little regard for him  Q: Did the The Hand have many duties? A: He had authority when he was hand which his father took  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Kings Landing the capital city?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why doesn't she want to look like a girl?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl  Q: Why doesn't she want to look like a girl? A: her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is her father abusive or something?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl  Q: Why doesn't she want to look like a girl? A: her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed  Q: Is her father abusive or something? A: then creepily caress her hair  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Sounds like the dude was a real weirdo. What was his response to Beverly cutting her hair?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl  Q: Why doesn't she want to look like a girl? A: her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed  Q: Is her father abusive or something? A: then creepily caress her hair  Q: Sounds like the dude was a real weirdo. What was his response to Beverly cutting her hair? A: In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Beverly like her hair short or did she just want to make her father mad?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl  Q: Why doesn't she want to look like a girl? A: her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed  Q: Is her father abusive or something? A: then creepily caress her hair  Q: Sounds like the dude was a real weirdo. What was his response to Beverly cutting her hair? A: In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was this an important part of the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is Budd unhappy with Bill?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Beatrix deserve to die?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill  Q: Why is Budd unhappy with Bill? A: because of his animosity towards Bill  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Beatrix want revenge?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill  Q: Why is Budd unhappy with Bill? A: because of his animosity towards Bill  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Beatrix get revenge?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her.  <sep>  Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her.  <sep>  Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is her "universal translator" working?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her.  <sep>  Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding  Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she understand the security guard?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her.  <sep>  Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding  Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her  Q: Did she understand the security guard? A: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How was her ability to understand English erased?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her.  <sep>  Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding  Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened when Kree captured her?
Output: No
CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the cataclysmic event?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  Q: What was the cataclysmic event? A: the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh I see, were they able be safe in Odin's Vault?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  Q: What was the cataclysmic event? A: the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed  Q: Oh I see, were they able be safe in Odin's Vault? A: The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Heimdall able to see the whole universe in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It is a common fact on TV that combat and injuries are stylized to make it look good rather than realistic. Have a look at pretty much any film fight where someone knows a martial art and compare that to someone who knows a martial art fighting for real. They are worlds apart. Even if you look at American Wrestling and BJJ you can see the difference. Knocking someone out with one punch is extremely difficult, especially if they are used to combat. I have taken an unpulled hit from a quarter staff on the top of my head which caused me to blackout later but I still didn't go down at the time. After almost 20 years of martial arts and living in rough areas I have only been knocked unconscious with one punch once, when I was 17 by the European Kickboxing champion. I was punched to the ground by a bouncer in Portsmouth when I was 20 but was still conscious until he stamped on my head. Most of the people in the Walking Dead would have starved or succumb to injuries by now if they were suffering this scenario for real. Not to mention being struck down by illness. It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead.  <sep>  Q: Are there a lot of head injuries in the Walking Dead?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is a common fact on TV that combat and injuries are stylized to make it look good rather than realistic. Have a look at pretty much any film fight where someone knows a martial art and compare that to someone who knows a martial art fighting for real. They are worlds apart. Even if you look at American Wrestling and BJJ you can see the difference. Knocking someone out with one punch is extremely difficult, especially if they are used to combat. I have taken an unpulled hit from a quarter staff on the top of my head which caused me to blackout later but I still didn't go down at the time. After almost 20 years of martial arts and living in rough areas I have only been knocked unconscious with one punch once, when I was 17 by the European Kickboxing champion. I was punched to the ground by a bouncer in Portsmouth when I was 20 but was still conscious until he stamped on my head. Most of the people in the Walking Dead would have starved or succumb to injuries by now if they were suffering this scenario for real. Not to mention being struck down by illness. It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead.  <sep>  Q: Are there a lot of head injuries in the Walking Dead? A: It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What show is this from?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is a common fact on TV that combat and injuries are stylized to make it look good rather than realistic. Have a look at pretty much any film fight where someone knows a martial art and compare that to someone who knows a martial art fighting for real. They are worlds apart. Even if you look at American Wrestling and BJJ you can see the difference. Knocking someone out with one punch is extremely difficult, especially if they are used to combat. I have taken an unpulled hit from a quarter staff on the top of my head which caused me to blackout later but I still didn't go down at the time. After almost 20 years of martial arts and living in rough areas I have only been knocked unconscious with one punch once, when I was 17 by the European Kickboxing champion. I was punched to the ground by a bouncer in Portsmouth when I was 20 but was still conscious until he stamped on my head. Most of the people in the Walking Dead would have starved or succumb to injuries by now if they were suffering this scenario for real. Not to mention being struck down by illness. It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead.  <sep>  Q: Are there a lot of head injuries in the Walking Dead? A: It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead  Q: What show is this from? A: the Walking Dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is it about?
Output: Yes